alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 5811 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 158

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 76 .0 $ 6,460.0

0 $ 

### 0 $ 6,460.00 

### 84 $ 542,640.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compl iance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 542,640



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs :

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Modification of

rear spar 60.0 $ 5,10 0.00 $13,664 $ 18,764.00



### Modification of

pintle and retraction

jack fitting 600.0 $ 51,000.00 $0 $ 51,000.00



### New Modification

requirement 980.0 $ 83,300.00 $32,727 $ 116,027.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Es timated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Polic ies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * N O

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

T his AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
(No. 6690

#### Edward L. Mansfield, d/b/a Mansfield Electric Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Illinois State Fair Agency, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November 14, 1972.*

Edward L. Mansfield, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 87

 75

 73

 73

 78

 86

 82

 88

 87

 91

 89

 92

 93

 89

 85

 88

 83

 77

 86

 86

 83

 83

 84

 84

 84

 80

 82

 84

 86

 88

 88

 74

 70

 69

 69

 72

 71

 70

 74

 72

 75

 74

 75

 76

 75

 72

 70

 71

 72

 72

 75

 74

 72

 72

 71

 70

 71

 70

 73

 73

 75

 76

 76

 72

 71

 71

 74

 77

 77

 79

 80

 82

 81

 82

 84

 81

 79

 78

 77

 73

 78

 77

 76

 74

 78

 79

 77

 76

 75

 80

 80

 82

 82

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 3, 2012

HIGH LOW MEAN

 69.1

 70.3

 69.6

 70.0

 70.7

 70.8

 71.8

 72.5

 73.3

 74.5

 75.5

 76.6

 75.3

 73.7

 73.6

 72.6

 71.2

 71.6

 72.1

 73.2

 74.7

 75.3

 75.5

 74.6

 73.4

 72.4

 72.6

 73.4

 73.1

 74.3

 75.8

 65.6

 66.2

 65.9

 66.0

 66.7

 67.0

 67.6

 68.3

 68.5

 68.7

 70.8

 72.0

 71.7

 69.9

 69.5

 69.5

 67.8

 67.0

 68.3

 68.3

 70.1

 71.2

 71.5

 70.6

 69.5

 68.6

 68.7

 68.8

 68.9

 69.1

 71.1

 67.2

 68.0

 67.9

 68.0

 68.6

 69.0

 69.7

 70.4

 70.9

 71.7

 73.1

 74.3

 73.5

 71.9

 71.6

 71.2

 69.5

 69.2

 70.1

 70.7

 72.4

 73.3

 73.5

 72.7

 71.6

 70.7

 70.7

 71.0

 71.2

 71.7

 73.3

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.2

 8.2

 8.3

 8.3

 8.1

 8.2

 8.2

 8.0

 8.0

 8.2

 7.7

 7.6

 7.9

 8.2

 8.3

 8.3

 8.6

 8.6

 8.5

 8.4

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.2

 8.3

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.2

 8.0

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 8.0

 7.8

 7.8

 7.8

 7.8

 7.6

 7.4

 7.3

 7.2

 7.1

 7.6

 7.8

 7.7

 8.0

 8.1

 8.0

 7.9

 7.8

 7.6

 7.6

 7.6

 7.8

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 7.8

 7.7

 7.5

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.2

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 7.9

 7.8

 7.6

 7.5

 7.4

 7.4

 7.8

 8.0

 8.0

 8.2

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 7.9

 7.8

 7.9

 8.0

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.0

 7.9

 7.7

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
(No. 74-CC-80

#### George T. Caleel, D.O., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed October 15, 1973.*

George T. Caleel, D.O., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 13,722

 14,305

 15,923

 19,359

 18,673

 19,563

 20,325

 21,194

 20,901

 20,229

 19,478

 18,616

 17,944

 15,571

 14,299

 17,037

 15,065

 15,537

 16,288

 19,295

 18,822

 18,166

 17,054

 17,074

 16,843

 16,200

 13,684

 12,328

 10,429

 10,607

 11,328

 5,066

 4,926

 4,508

 7,125

 6,739

 5,777

 6,508

 6,444

 6,147

 5,916

 5,929

 6,045

 5,632

 5,692

 4,807

 5,485

 6,348

 5,065

 4,901

 5,725

 5,948

 5,183

 5,103

 5,423

 5,046

 4,925

 4,277

 3,569

 3,395

 2,712

 2,059

 10,101

 9,683

 9,908

 11,251

 11,571

 11,647

 12,812

 13,719

 14,109

 13,265

 13,185

 12,499

 12,306

 11,596

 10,675

 12,112

 10,128

 9,493

 10,079

 11,682

 12,513

 11,998

 11,306

 11,514

 11,343

 11,051

 9,554

 8,565

 7,730

 6,441

 6,386

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 12, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
Jonathan B. Hill

T: +1 202 776 2725

jhill@cooley.com

1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400 T: (202) 842-7800 F: (202) 842-7899 WWW.COOLEY.COM

April 9, 2014

VIA Electronic Filing

The Honorable Susan L. Kurland

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Letters of Support for Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation for Within- 

 Perimeter Slot Exemptions (DCA-JAX) in Docket OST-2000-7182

Dear Ms. Kurland: 

Enclosed please find letters of support for JetBlue’s application for slot exemptions to add 

service between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Jacksonville, Florida’s 

Jacksonville International Airport from U.S. Senator Bill Nelson; U.S. Representatives Corrine 

Brown, Ander Crenshaw, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Yoho; Mayor Alvin Brown; Steve Grossman, 

chief executive officer of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority; the St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra & 

The Beaches Visitors and Convention Bureau; and David Reese, President of Florida’s First 

Coast of Golf. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan B. Hill

Enc: (6) 

cc: Service List



To whom it may concern: 

The St. Augustine, Ponte Vedra & The Beaches 

Visitors and Convention Bureau is pleased to support 

the addition of JetBlue flights into Jacksonville 

International Airport. Visitors to Florida’s Historic 

Coast® spend in excess of $752million each year and 

support nearly 22% of all adult, private sector 

employment, so you can imagine how important each 

new flight into our region is to our community. Our 

organization, through its promotional resources, will 

actively drive demand for our destination in the source 

markets for the planned JetBlue flights from 

Washington Reagan National Airport. 

We urge the Department of Transportation to swiftly 

approve JetBlue’s request for this important new 

flight. 

Sincerely,
### §2348c. Administrative authorities

Except where expressly provided to the contrary, any reference in any law to subchapter I of this chapter shall be deemed to include reference to this part and any reference in any law to subchapter II of this chapter shall be deemed to exclude reference to this part.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §553, formerly §554, as added Pub. L. 95–384, §12(a), Sept. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 737; renumbered §553, Pub. L. 96–533, title I, §116(b), Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3140.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### References to Subchapter I Deemed To Include Certain Parts of Subchapter II, and References to Subchapter II Deemed To Exclude Such Parts

References to subchapter I of this chapter are deemed to include parts IV (§2346 et seq.) and VIII (§2349aa et seq.) of subchapter II of this chapter, and references to subchapter II are deemed to exclude such parts. See section 202(b) of Pub. L. 92–226, set out as a note under section 2346 of this title, and section 2349aa–5 of this title.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0319. JUSTIN ALAN JONES v. THE STATE.

Justin Alan Jones has filed an application for discretionary review of the

superior court’s order denying his motion to dismiss based on an alleged violation of

his statutory right to a speedy trial. The denial of a motion to dismiss based on a

statutory speedy trial demand is directly appealable. See Hubbard v. State, 254 Ga.

694, 695-696 (333 SE2d 827) (1985). Because the superior court’s order appears to be

subject to direct appeal, we hereby GRANT Jones’s application for appeal. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Jones shall have ten days from the date of this order to file his

notice of appeal in the superior court, if he has not already done so. The superior

court is instructed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to this

court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 22, 2024

04/22/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,617,762
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,456,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,149,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,482,369
<PP&E>                                       3,245,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,644,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,550,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,141,755
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,130,930)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,644,352
<SALES>                                     15,275,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,275,093
<CGS>                                        6,164,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,911
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,894)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Intrusion Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB (the “Report”),for the three month period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersignedOfficers of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                                          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                                          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| November 9, 2007 | /s/ G. Ward  Paxton      |   |
|------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|             | G. Ward Paxton           |
|             | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 
| November 9, 2007 | /s/ Michael L. Paxton   |   |
|------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| ** **       | Michael L. Paxton       |
|             | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

**The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely pursuant to Section 906 of the act and is not being filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosuredocument.**

 

 

----
### §263a. International Criminal Police Organization

The Attorney General is authorized to accept and maintain, on behalf of the United States, membership in the International Criminal Police Organization, and to designate any departments and agencies which may participate in the United States representation with that organization. All dues and expenses to be paid for the membership of the United States shall be paid out of sums authorized and appropriated for the Department of Justice.

(June 10, 1938, ch. 335, 52 Stat. 640; Pub. L. 85–768, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 921; Pub. L. 90–159, Nov. 28, 1967, 81 Stat. 517; Pub. L. 92–380, §1, Aug. 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 531; Pub. L. 93–468, §1, Oct. 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 1422; Pub. L. 95–624, §21(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3466.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–624 substituted provision authorizing payment of all dues and expenses for membership of the United States out of sums authorized and appropriated for Department of Justice for provisions authorizing each participating department and agency to pay its pro rata share of expenses of such membership and forbidding total dues paid for such membership to exceed $120,000 per annum.

1974—Pub. L. 93–468 substituted "$120,000" for "$80,000".

1972—Pub. L. 92–380 substituted "$80,000" for "$28,500".

1967—Pub. L. 90–159 substituted "$28,500" for "$25,000".

1958—Pub. L. 85–768 authorized the Attorney General to designate departments and agencies which may participate, on a pro rata share basis, in the United States representation with the International Criminal Police Organization, and increased from $1,500 to $25,000 per annum the amount of expenses which may be incurred by reason of United States membership.
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

               UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joel San Antonio, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Warrantech Corporation;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  Quarterly  Report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly
Report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this Quarterly  Report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         (a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         (c)  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         (b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

Date:  August 14, 2003                     /s/ Joel San Antonio
                                           --------------------
                                           Joel San Antonio
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




                                       17
§ 404.364 When is a grandchild or stepgrandchild dependent? If you are the insured's grandchild or stepgrandchild, as defined in § 404.358(a), you are considered dependent upon the insured if— ( a ) You began living with the insured before you became 18 years old; and
( b ) You were living with the insured in the United States and receiving at least one-half of your support from him or her for the year before he or she became entitled to old-age or disability benefits or died; or if the insured had a period of disability that lasted until he or she became entitled to benefits or died, for the year immediately before the month in which the period of disability began. If you were born during the 1-year period, the insured must have lived with you and provided at least one-half of your support for *substantially all* of the period that begins on the date of your birth. Paragraph (c) of this section explains when the *substantially all* requirement is met.
( c ) The “substantially all” requirement will be met if, at one of the times described in paragraph (b) of this section, the insured was living with you and providing at least one-half of your support, and any period during which he or she was not living with you and providing one-half of your support did not exceed the lesser of 3 months or one-half of the period beginning with the month of your birth.
[44 FR 34481, June 15, 1979, as amended at 73 FR 40967, July 17, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-25-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-25-1996
<CASH>                                           8,461
<SECURITIES>                                     6,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                       676
<INVENTORY>                                     23,495
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,074
<PP&E>                                          45,941
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,504
<SALES>                                         93,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,954
<CGS>                                           57,285
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.50)
        

</TABLE>
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

Lemhi Range

Camas Creek

Goat Mountain

Phelan

Italian Peak

Allan Mountain

Napoleon Ridge

Duck Peak

Sheepeater West Big Hole

Jureano

Long Tom

Napias

West Panther Creek

Taylor Mountain

Sal Mountain

Oreana

Jesse Creek

Little Horse

Haystack Mountain

Musgrove

Anderson Mountain

Deep Creek

Ageny Creek

Goldbug Ridge

Perreau Creek

South Deep Creek

McEleny

South Panther

Blue Joint Mountain

£¤93

¬«28

¬«75

¬«43

May

Lemhi

Ellis

Baker

Shoup

Cobalt

Salmon

Carmen

Gilmore

Leadore

Clayton Sunbeam

Challis

Patterson

North Fork

Gibbonsville

Management Themes Applied to Idaho Roadless Areas

Wild Land Recreation

Primitive

Backcountry/Restoration

General Forest , Rangeland and Grassland

Forest Plan Special Areas

Wilderness

National Forest System Lands

(Other ownership is not displayed)

Salmon Existing Plan Management Themes

8 4 0 8 I Miles

The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete

data available. GIS Data and product accuracy may vary.

Using GIS products for puposes other than those for which they

were intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results.

The USDA Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update,

modify, or replace GIS products without notification.
Attachment B

Email Announcement of ARB Public Hearing